4/10
Even worse
28 October 2007
A poor sequel to a movie the very existence of which was just barely warranted, if at all, much less deserving a follow-up(and it didn't even end here). Granted, the end of the first did pretty much mean that they had to do at least one more, and the addition to the gimmick as well as the new pun of equally questionable ability to amuse, but couldn't they at least have used the same female actress? She (name withheld so as to not spoil the surprise) would have been fine, heck, just about anyone would have. But Roseanne? They had half of the Earth's population to choose from, and out of all those options, out of every woman on the planet, they picked... her? This is one of three pieces of... entertainment? no, that's not it, this doesn't qualify as that... that I've seen her in, and were her parts permanently taken out from all three, it would not exactly reduce me to crying in the fetal position. The reaction it would produce from me would rather be in the other end of the spectrum. Various cast-members return, not all having anything to do. More nightmare sequences, one misusing a master in comedy. Gilbert Gottfried is brought in to perform his shtick, but interjects no laughs. So is Damon Wayans(Wayans', I'm sure, need to do no acting to play kids, or their voices, anyway). This time around, the couple fight. Their differences are yet again set up against each other in a manner that I would presume is meant to entertain. So is most of the movie, one would guess, but it tends to inspire boredom and restlessness, instead. More scenes that seem to have no other purpose for existing than to bring the running time close to 90 minutes(though this didn't even make it to that... thank goodness). Pro-gun people take a pounding. At least the kids stop talking after this one. I recommend this to... I don't know, people who can stand Roseanne and/or needless sequels. 4/10
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed